Feeding frenzy

I have been out all day visiting clergy and parishes in Airedale. Time was tight and I wasn’t able to get stuck in to the Rowan Williams media frenzy – although I did manage to do two quick radio interviews in-between meetings. Having read the actual article in the New Statesman, I am wondering if the media are actually feeding from the wrong menu. If Rowan wanted to attack the government, he could have done it better than this. But this isn’t the purpose of his article. It clearly suits the agenda of the media to look for conflict where there is only debate.

First, it is clear that some commentators haven’t actually read the original article, but are responding to the second-hand articles produced by others. Good for a story and venting a little spleen, but not terribly useful.

Second, whatever answers people want to give to the questions he articulates, is anyone seriously suggesting that the questions aren’t the right ones?

Third, aren’t some of the attacks on him simply a form of distraction therapy for people who find his questioning embarrassingly on target?

One of the more bizarre elements of this business is the suggestion that the Archbishop of Canterbury shouldn’t interfere in politics. That view assumes that either politics is the preserve of those who think they have a right to occupy a fantasy ‘neutral’ space or that politics has nothing to do with real life. At least David Cameron acknowledged the right (if not the imperative) for the Church to speak out on such matters. However, his response seems to be to reporting on the Archbishop’s article rather than the content of the article itself.

It is worth noting also that the article is the leader written by Rowan as guest editor of this edition of the New Statesman. It introduces articles by several politicians who go on to address the questions raised in ways which the Archbishop might find unconvincing. In other words, the leader has to be seen in the context of the whole and read as an introduction to what is intended to be an intelligent discussion of the very themes the Archbishop thinks should be raised more widely.

I would love to ask some of the screaming commentators when they last trod the pavements of some of the poorest communities in our cities and rural areas. When did they last encounter people who are genuinely bemused by what is going on with the economy, education or the NHS? When did they last listen to the stories of those who constantly lose out and for whom the future looks hopeless?

David Cameron (interestingly) was heard to say that he disagreed that people whould be paid to stay out of work. I have no idea to which question that was deemed to be a relevant answer. Identifying the consequences of economic and other policies on poor people is not to say that they should be kept in perpetuity by the State. But it is to ask what sort of society we wish to shape, how we will cope with the dispossessed or the disaffected (who won’t simply disappear quietly into the ether), and which values should run through that society. Indeed, the Archbishop is asking politicians – not just the government, but those failing to state a credible alternative – to articulate the values and philosophical assumptions underlying their determined policies.

Why is that request deemed inappropriate or odd? Do we not think that our democracy is impoverished if we simply accept electoral apathy, political disconnectedness or lack of engagement with the public discourse on those values that will shape us – wittingly or unwittingly? Do we really not need a more diligent and intelligent debate about which values we wish as a society to espouse – or do we just accept uncritically the notion that pragmatism should be unchallenged? Shouldn’t the electorate have been given an opportunity to know where any potential goverment might take education or the NHS – or are we just to accept that elections are to be seen as a sort of shadow boxing after which the lights can be changed and the shadows ignored in favour of some other substance?

When the frenzy has ended and the calmer commentators are picking over the bones of this matter, I dare to think that the questions and challenges put by the Archbishop will be seen to be the right ones – prophetic in the best sense of the word. As he says towards the end of his article:

… a democracy capable of real argument about shared needs and hopes and real generosity: any takers?

51.371261-0.089800

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Related

14 Responses to “Feeding frenzy”

Well said. As far as I could see, what Rowan Williams said was that the Government has not made a terribly good fist of explaining its policies, that they were not exactly clearly preshadowed in the manifestos at the election (which they weren’t – my job required me to analyse all of them at the time), that some elements of this are making some people genuinely scared, and that this does raise some genuine issues about the nature of democratic politics. That’s not remotely the same thing as attacking the Government, although it certainly does suggest that he doesn’t think that it has made as strong a case for its policies as such substantial changes should require. Personally I thougt it a very reasonable and thoughtful piece, entirely compatible with his responsibilities as Archbishop and as a crossbench peer. But, unfortunately, reasonable and thoughtful don’t make good headlines.

I can’t help feeling that if it had been the Archbishop of Westminster – who also speaks out on issues of the day – there would have been less of a furore. That’s because some of the media seem to think that the Archbishop of Canterbury should be some kind of ornament of state: a playing card figure who looks good presiding at a prince’s wedding but who should basically keep quiet. The idea that he should have the right and the duty to raise uncomfortable issues seems to be totally wrong to such commentators. I call that lazy, saloon bar thinking that pigeonholes Dr Williams as some kind of bearded leftie who can’t even keep his own troops under control; but I also have to regret that all this is not always helped by comments made every so often – too often – by his predecessor and, yes, by one or two other figures in purple to the south of you.

When I actually read his article, I realised that he was pointing towards issues for debate. But have not yet had the time to read the other articles in question.

I think that your post goes to the heart of the media frenzy where seeking conflict as a short-term headline, blinds many to the need to read and reflect, before responding.

It is actually heartening to see the ABC writing in this way, surely he has a pastoral duty to raise the issues troubling so many. What many do not realise is that he does not live in an Ivory Tower but, like most bishops, actually gets out and listens to those on the ground. In Diocese, in parishes and just those whom he meets day to day.

Politicians pride themselves on being representative of their constituents, forgetting that Bishops, Priests and Deacons also have a representative public role, one which articulates the good news, but also the fears, concerns, worries effecting parishioners and wider in our communities. Does a politician visit every part of their constituency, remote rural communities to gather opinion? I very much doubt it. The Church has a footprint in every single community, and I would suggest, in most cases has a much clearer view of what is going on in their communities, perhaps clearer even than some local councilors.

So, hurrah for the ABC. My local bishop is often in the local area, visiting and listening. He also regularly engages with media locally and regionally. I just wish he was also on twitter and facebook, social media engages more directly than any other medium.

I think ++Rowan is at his best when he gets stuck into such issues, partly because of his academic clout which means that he has to be taken seriously and that he is capable of a subtlety in his argument that challenges most political discourse. If the Labour party had a coherent vision to offer from the left, then perhaps his voice would not be so needed.

I also wonder whether part of this is aimed against the Ian Duncan- Smith welfare reforms, rooted in the Centre for Social Justice, with its Conservative Christian ethos. Some of its attitudes are not far fromt the ‘deserving and undeserving poor’

A good article. I agree with most of it. However, I would like to pick you up on this:

“Shouldn’t the electorate have been given an opportunity to know where any potential goverment might take education or the NHS – or are we just to accept that elections are to be seen as a sort of shadow boxing after which the lights can be changed and the shadows ignored in favour of some other substance?”

I am sorry but this assumes that the education and health reforms currently being pursued were not flagged up in the respective parties manifestos and campaigns. That is simply untrue.

From the Conservtive manifesto last May – about NHS reform (on page 46, under “Trust Healthcare Professionals”):

“Doctors and nurses need to be able to usetheir professional judgement about what is right for patients, instead of being forced to follow bureaucratic processes that often put lives at risk. That is why we will scrap the politically-motivated targets that have no clinical justification. We will set NHS providers free to innovate by ensuring that they becomeautonomous Foundation Trusts.”

and they add:

“NHS staff will be properly accountable to patients for their performance, removing the need for expensive layers of bureaucracy to oversee the NHS. As a result, we will be able to cut the cost of NHS administration by a third and transfer resources to support doctors and nurses on the front line.”

“[O]ur first priority is to increase spending in some parts of the NHS by cutting waste in others. We have identiﬁed speciﬁc savings that can be made in management costs, bureaucracy and quangos, and we will reinvest that money back into the health care you need.”

It goes on specifically to say they will:

“Cut the size of the Department of Health by half, abolish unnecessary quangos such as Connecting for Health and cut the budgets of therest, scrap Strategic Health Authorities and seek to limit the pay and bonuses of top NHS managers so that none are paid more than the Prime Minister.”

and

“Empower local communities to improve health services through elected Local Health Boards, which will take over the role of Primary Care Trust boards in commissioning care for local people, working in co-operation with local councils.”

You can see the kernel of the currently proposed health reforms there in the manifestos.

Replacing PCTs and SHAs actually was in the Liberal Democrat election manifesto.

As for education reforms, the Conservative manifesto said:

“Drawing on the experience of the Swedish school reforms and the charter school movement in the United States, we will breakdown barriers to entry so that any good education provider can set up a new Academy school.”

and

“We want every child to benefit from our reforms. So all existing schools will have the chance to achieve Academy status…”

-The basis there of the proposed education reforms.

OK. You and the Archbishop obviously didn’t read the manifestos. You haven’t bothered to go back and read them after the event. Fine. Nor have many other people. And yes, the campaign media coverage didn’t focus on health and education.

But please, spare us the completely untrue assumption that these reforms were not flagged up in advance by the parties. It is lazy nonsense.

I have been pretty much fed up by the media pack going for Rowan Williams. Here is a Welsh bishop putting a point of view not in keeping with the closet views around the Westminster ivory tower, of course they are going to go for him whether what he says makes sense or nonsense. I just say keep it up Rowan and ‘give em hell’ to coin a phrase.

It was, to me, a prime example of the media writing the story they wanted to write:
“leader of Church attacks government for being uncaring”, without being sufficiently attentive to the actual evidence.
Other stories the media are desperate to write about religion:
a. Bishop doesn’t believe in Christmas story: ergo the Church of England is losing its bearings because it doesn’t stand for anything any more.
b. Pope makes U-turns on condoms, and says they are okay after all.
c. Church of England decides sexually-active gay relationships are healthy after all.
d. Church attacks ludicrous luxury excesses of anyone 50% richer than the journalist writing this story.
e. Bishop/ Pope/ famous figure in sex scandal with star of “The Only Way is Essex”.
f. Anglican communion splits forever.
g. Quotas introduced/ got rid of for entry into top-academic performing faith schools.

Perhaps the jackpot would be: Church of Nigeria leaves the Anglican communion over Archbishop of Canterbury’s laissez-faire attitude to affair between Pope and Only-Way-is-Essex star, in which condoms were used, just 120 metres from oversubscribed C of E primary school.

Similarly, there are some stories that are important to Christians but the media really couldn’t care less about:
a. One evangelical leader has slightly different understanding of the atonement from another evangelical leader.
b. Church sees suffering in incipient Sudanese miliary conflict and attempts to alleviate it
c. Christians from different traditions broadly speaking getting on with eachother
d. Flying bishops/ ordinariates/ co-ordinates/ pastoral measures: it’s just too complciated and twisted for anyone outside the Church to care, but we seem to expend an incredible amount of energy on it.

The art, I guses, is to try to ride the wave of what they want to write and attempt to reshape it, and, for once, I think the AbC and the Church overall did this quite well, here.